You Are Here:
Non-GE farmer faces liability in three main ways:
Under current law, a non-GE farmer whose land or crop has been contaminated must initiate a lawsuit and bear the onus of proving that:
Remedies for affected non-GE farmers and the chances of successful legal action are limited – as revealed by a Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry report on GE and liability.
The report notes that if contamination occurs “through the spread of pollen via wind, insects or birds” and does not cause actual (direct and measurable) damage, a non-GE farmer is unlikely to recover costs or damages in common law.
It also states that if the “unintended presence" of GE merely prevents the land being used for organic or GE-free farming, the court may "determine that interference is not unreasonable…as no actual damage has occurred”.
The likelihood of a non-GE farmer being sued for patent violation if GE inadvertently contaminates his or her land is still unclear. However, the Canadian Supreme Court decision supporting the patent rights of Monsanto over a canola farmer reminds us there is uncertainty ahead.
1.
Their crop, harvest or land is contaminated by GE and they seek to
recover under the applicable common law doctrines of nuisance, trespass
or negligence
2. Their crop, harvest or land is contaminated by GE and they face legal action for patent infringement or for marketing a crop as GE-free, when it isn’t
3. Their crop is contaminated by GE and they inadvertently contaminate the crop, harvest or land of others. This is most likely to occur during transport or storage.
2. Their crop, harvest or land is contaminated by GE and they face legal action for patent infringement or for marketing a crop as GE-free, when it isn’t
3. Their crop is contaminated by GE and they inadvertently contaminate the crop, harvest or land of others. This is most likely to occur during transport or storage.
Under current law, a non-GE farmer whose land or crop has been contaminated must initiate a lawsuit and bear the onus of proving that:
• They were owed a duty by the farmer accused of harming them
• The duty was breached by the farmer (if the GE farmer acts according to licence conditions, the duty is unlikely to be breached)
• The harm was directly caused by that particular farmer (if other farmers in the area are also growing GE, proving the origin of the harm may be very difficult).
• The duty was breached by the farmer (if the GE farmer acts according to licence conditions, the duty is unlikely to be breached)
• The harm was directly caused by that particular farmer (if other farmers in the area are also growing GE, proving the origin of the harm may be very difficult).
Remedies for affected non-GE farmers and the chances of successful legal action are limited – as revealed by a Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry report on GE and liability.
The report notes that if contamination occurs “through the spread of pollen via wind, insects or birds” and does not cause actual (direct and measurable) damage, a non-GE farmer is unlikely to recover costs or damages in common law.
It also states that if the “unintended presence" of GE merely prevents the land being used for organic or GE-free farming, the court may "determine that interference is not unreasonable…as no actual damage has occurred”.
The likelihood of a non-GE farmer being sued for patent violation if GE inadvertently contaminates his or her land is still unclear. However, the Canadian Supreme Court decision supporting the patent rights of Monsanto over a canola farmer reminds us there is uncertainty ahead.
